On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hmm.. is it worth going back to my proposal?
>
> I don't recall exactly what proposal you might be referring to, but
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg00400.php
> I'm hesitant to put any large amount of work into hacking .pgpass
> processing for this. The whole business of replication authorization
> is likely to get revisited in 9.1, no? I think a cheap-and-cheerful
> solution is about right for the moment.
Fair enough. My proposal patch might be too large to apply at this
point.
>> - snprintf(conninfo_repl, sizeof(conninfo_repl), "%s replication=true", conninfo);
>> + snprintf(conninfo_repl, sizeof(conninfo_repl), "%s database=replication replication=true", conninfo);
Tom's proposal is very small, but we cannot distinguish the password
for replication purpose from that for the real database named "replication".
Is this OK? I can live with this as far as it's documented.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center